They aren't naked assertions, I have posted links to ALL of the information I am referencing...you have not bothered to read them offering excuses in place of analysis.
You post links that do not give a reasonable person grounds to believe there was a conspiracy. Then you claim over and over again that you have proven there was a conspiracy.
your opinion based on what you have read...these does not equate fact.
This is true, but your opinion based on what you have read is not fact either.
What is telling is that you cannot or will not post a single fact wich discredits the official story or proves the existence of a conspiracy.
And blanket skepticism isn't a bias?
Believe me, there are plenty of posters around here perfectly happy to believe bad things about the Bush administration - if and only if the evidence supports it. If there was credible evidence that the current US government conspired to bring about 9/11 I and at least half a dozen others would love to see it.
In fact if ironclad proof emerged tomorrow that Cheney personally piloted the planes into the buildings by remote control and then GW Bush pushed a big red button that detonated the secret explosive concrete I would do a happy dance in my lounge room. I would probably even sing a happy song too.
The problem is that if you approach the official story and the conspiracy theories with equal skepticism, you conclude that the conspiracy theories are a big pile of the brown stuff.
first off, this is an assumption, there is no indication that these were rushed to the presses.
You're missing the point. Newspaper stories alone are not sufficient proof of extraordinary claims because newspapers get the facts wrong all the time.
The research done by the independent media is invaluable. They are not making extraordinary claims, they are claiming based on hard evidence that there has been a cover up of events.
Great! This is exactly what I have been asking for from the start, and you were claiming up until a minute ago that you didn't have it.
What's the hard evidence? Where is it? What does it prove is being covered up? Please be completely specific, don't just handwave and say "Oh, it's somewhere in one of the links I posted". Tell us exactly what the hard evidence is, where it is documented, and what it proves.
I have been researching this since the event occured. The time for me to be over excited has passed. If you aren't a little paranoid in light of current/recent events than you haven't been paying attention.
Like I said earlier, suspicion of the motives and character of the current administration is a great place to start an investigation and a terrible place to stop one. I've been paying attention, but I have seen no hard evidence of a conspiracy.
Exactly, as I have been saying there isn't ANY, one way or the other...it is foolish to believe any unsupported story.
Oh, for pity's sake. There is a mountain of evidence for the official story, not the least of which is that literally thousands of government employees would have to be in on any cover-up of the major events of 9/11.
But it's ok for you to ignore other engineers, and scientists that are in favor of a different version of events? Most don't claim a conspiracy theory, they just say it's not possible. I have linked all the information, and the step by step explanations as to why they believe this...you haven't read them.
Actually I probably have, although it's possible I missed one or two. Invariably the people claiming conspiracy do not represent the majority of people with relevant expertise. They're isolated individuals who are acting outside their area of competence.
I find it hard to believe that the overwhelming majority of high-rise building engineers and failure analysts worldwide are in on a conspiracy.
Perhaps equally importantly there is absolutely no plausible story as to why the evil conspirators would particularly want the WTC buildings to fall down, nor why they would choose a ridiculously complicated plan involving kamikaze airliners if they did.
When, and how could you know anything about me?
You didn't know how well steel conducts heat. Now you are trying to pretend it was a rhetorical question and you knew all along. That indicates to me firstly that you don't have the grasp of physics I expect from a reasonably talented high school student who studies physics, and that you are a bit dishonest.
The first is nothing to be ashamed of. Many perfectly intelligent people choose subjects other than physics in high school. The second, well...
Why? Because I asked a rhetorical question about the heat conduction of steel. It is a strong metal, it conducts heat well...no rocket science there.
Oh really? Allow me to quote you. You said "I am not familiar, but I would wonder how well steel diffuses heat, and if this would bolster, or work against the point of view that a fire weakened them to breaking."
Here's a link to the remark in context:
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...579&highlight=steel+conducts+heat#post1362579
That does not sound to me, in or out of context, remotely like a rhetorical question from someone informed about the physical properties of steel.
I think you are trying to be sneaky, thesyntaxera/love.
Magic is invoked in the official tale however. The entire truss theory has been debunked. Like I said, read.
Debunked by relevant experts? Or poked at by irrelevant laypeople, much as the moon landings are poked at?
That is a rhetorical question, by the way, just so you know what one might look like.
Yes, so what is the evidence that proves the official story? A list will do.
Your wacky claim, your burden of proof.
Except that this snippet is completely turned inside out when you look at how much was known in advance.
Facts? Evidence? Why is it that you first deny you have a single solid bit of evidence disproving the official story, and then you turn around and make claims like this that imply you have exactly such evidence?
Given that I already believe you to be a bit dishonest, you are not helping yourself by behaving this way.
